TERRESTRIAL BROADCAST VS. LTE- EMBMS: COMPETITION AND COOPERATIONmontreal.ieee.ca/files/2015/12/eMBMS_Cooperation... · 2015-12-29 · • The BTS is a trans-national Society with

© Fraunhofer IIS, 2015. These slides may be distributed freely

TERRESTRIAL BROADCAST VS. LTE-EMBMS: COMPETITION AND COOPERATION

Meeting of the IEEE BTS Chapter Montréal

2015-11-19

Marco Breiling Fraunhofer Institute for Integrated Circuits (IIS) Erlangen, Germany

© Christos Georghiou - Fotolia.de

© Fraunhofer IIS, 2015. These slides may be distributed freely 2

Fraunhofer Institute for Integrated Circuits IIS Headquarters Erlangen, Bavaria, Germany Founded 1985, Employees: 830, Budget: 108 Mio. €


Fraunhofer IIS – Business Fields

Audio and Multimedia

IC-Design and Design Automation

Sensor Systems

Positioning, Navigation, Localization

Communications / Digital Broadcasting

Energy Management

Nondestructive Testing

Medical Technology

Supply Chains

Safety and Security Technologies

Home of


Communication Systems Division @ IIS – Business Fields

Automotive Digital Broadcasting

Internet of Things

Satellite Communications

Public Safety Mobile Broadband Communication


The Competence in Digital Radio Systems IIS Contributions to Digital Broadcasting Systems

EUREKA 147 DAB

WorldSpace

DRM

2000

Digital Radio Mondiale DRM

XM Satellite Radio

1995

Sirius Satellite Radio

WorldSpace

Digital Radio

Ku-Mobile (12 GHz Band)

DVB-T / DVB-H / DVB-SH / DVB-NGH / ATSC 3.0

Ku-Mobile

DVB / ATSC

2005 2010

XM Radio

Sirius

IEEE Broadcast Technology Society

IEEE Broadcast Technology Society “The technologies to deliver information and

entertainment to audiences worldwide, at home and on the go.”

Benefits of IEEE BTS Membership

• The BTS is a trans-national Society with over 2000 members and 20 Chapters worldwide. Our Society concerns itself with devices, equipment, techniques and systems related to broadcast technology, including the production, distribution, transmission, and propagation aspects. Our Society is working to advance the professional standing and education of its Members, through our publications, conferences, tutorials and Chapter meetings.

11/19/2015 7

Distinguished Lecturer Program • Mission: To serve the needs of the members of the Broadcast

Technology Society to enhance their professional knowledge and vitality by keeping them informed of the latest research results and their practical applications. The BTS Distinguished Lecturer Program exists for the purpose of providing BTS chapters with a list of quality lecturers who can potentially give talks at local chapter meetings, as well as funding to support the travel expenses of the lecturer. The program provides a means for chapters to have access to individuals who are well known educators and authors in the fields of broadcast technology to lecture at chapter meetings.

11/19/2015 8

11/19/2015 9

• USA • UK • Canada • Germany • Singapore • Argentina • China • Spain • Korea • Malaysia

• DTV & MPEG • ATSC 3.0 • Display Monitors • Cameras • Satellite • Audio Loudness • Video & Audio Compression & Coding technologies • Channel Rate allocation techniques • 3D TV • Digital Radio • Broadcast Regulatory & Legislative Issues • 8-VSB • AM, FM, TV antennas • Image Artifacts • Directional Pattern design for antennas • Multimedia Broadcast Services w/ Distributed Transmission Network • Signal Processing in Broadband Multimedia Communications • Transmitter ID for Digital Video Broadcast • SFN, Distributed & Cloud Transmission Systems • Wind Turbine impact to UHF Band DTV • Video Streaming w/Multiple Description Coding & Network Diversity • Temporal Dependant Rate Distortion Optimization in Motion Compensated Video Coding

Please Consider Joining IEEE Broadcast Technology Society

TODAY

Use Promotion Code: CRMBT83115


TERRESTRIAL BROADCAST VS. LTE-EMBMS: COMPETITION AND COOPERATION

© Christos Georghiou - Fotolia.de


Status Quo of terrestrial broadcast vs. cellular networks

Future competition and cooperation scenarios

Potential cooperation concepts (architectures and techniques)

Conclusion and outlook

Terrestrial BC vs. eMBMS: Competition and Cooperation Agenda

© kras99 – Fotolia.com







© Alex - Fotolia.de


Focus here: Digital Terrestrial TV (DTT) broadcast

NOT focus: audio broadcast (traditional radio)

Use case: very many, very cheap devices (either analog or digital)

Requirements: low data rates + relatively small spectrum

There is no real competition between audio broadcast and cellular communication

So there is little need to cooperate

Status Quo Focus of this Talk

Very different from cellular communication

Low pressure to release the spectrum

© Adam Gryko - Fotolia.com


Status Quo The Apparent Success Story of Digital Terrestrial TV

Units shipped world-wide in each year (forecast from 2011):

Source: NPD DisplaySearch Quarterly TV Design and Features Report


TV reception (analog and digital) in Europe (23 countries)

Reason:

Satellite and cable offer more channels and higher quality

IPTV is gaining ground Sources: SES Satellite Monitors – www.ses.com/18028656 and www.ses.com/11613037

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Terrestrial

Satellite

Cable

IPTV

million households

Status Quo Other Side of the Medal: Terrestrial TV is on the Retreat


Source: http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/visual-networking-index-vni/white_paper_c11-520862.html

1.2 billion smartphones shipped in 2014

Mobile video traffic already exceeds 50% of the total traffic

Status Quo And Here Comes the Challenger…


Earlier attempts to cooperate between the two worlds

DVB-H, DVB-NGH, ATSC-M/H, MediaFLO

ISDB-T 1seg, T-DMB

Result: mostly no commercial success! Why?

Before the touchscreen era

Power consumption problem

Significant extra device cost

Operators sponsoring devices have no interest

Not sufficient user demand to justify extra cost

Status Quo Broadcast Entering Mobile Devices

Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DMB_Korea.JPG


Smart TVs connect to the internet

for interactive services (HbbTV, ATSC 2.0)

for video streaming (VoD)

for video telephony (Skype)

for computer-like use (web surfing etc.)

for some clever things that you will see later

Currently via Ethernet or Wi-Fi

Soon with integrated LTE modems?

E.g. in rural areas, where broadband connection is LTE anyway

Status Quo (Mobile) Communication Entering Broadcast Devices

© Oleksiy Mark - Fotolia.de


LTE is making inroads into the broadcast segment:

eMBMS (evolved Multicast Broadcast Multimedia Services) has been part of 3GPP standards for several years

There is currently a lot of attention from cellular operators

A number of pilot projects, test networks and even commercial services are in operation

Status Quo Broadcast as Part of LTE

Source: GSA: LTE Broadcast (eMBMS) Update - March 2015


Source: Ericsson, DVB World 2014

Status Quo eMBMS Trials in Stadiums


Source: Qualcomm , LTE eMBMS Technology Overview, 2012

Status Quo eMBMS System Design

Integral part of LTE uses same cellular network


Shares same technology as LTE-Unicast

e.g. same capacity-achieving FEC code (turbo code)

Supports Single Frequency Network (SFN) operation

Extended cyclic prefix (guard interval) compared to LTE-Unicast: up to 33 µs (in theory)

Can share the same carrier bandwidth quite flexibly with unicast services (but only up to 60% for eMBMS in current LTE releases)

However:

Not optimum for covering larger areas (guard interval still too short)

MIMO (Multiple-Input-Multiple-Output) disabled

Status Quo Strengths of LTE-eMBMS

DVB-T2:

very long LDPCCs

several 10 or 100 µs


Status Quo Isn’t eMBMS Just Another DTT System?


Highly optimized Physical Layer design:

High constellation orders (up to 4096)

Long FEC code words and long time interleavers

Efficient signaling + pilot structures

Spectrally efficient Single Frequency Network (SFN) operation

Status Quo The Classical DTT Legacy: Very High Spectral Efficiencies

-5 0 5 10 15 20 250

2

4

6

8

S/N [dB]

Spec

tr. E

ff.

Gap between 1 and 2 dB

NUC gains SNR Gain

Eff. Gain

64-QAM, R=7/15 0.5 dB 5%

64-QAM, R=10/15 0.5 dB 4%

256-QAM, R=9/15 0.9 dB 6%

256-QAM, R=11/15 0.7 dB 4%

Source: Uni Basque Country, UPV


Downside: More or less reached the Shannon limit for SISO transmission

Moreover: The powerful MIMO concept can be exploited to a very limited extent:

High implementation cost both on Tx- and Rx-side

Limited gain (lacking a feedback channel) only open-loop MIMO

Status Quo The Limits of Increasing Spectral Efficiencies

Transmit power [linear!]

Dat

a ra

te

Getting here costs much power

-5 0 5 10 15 20 250

2

4

6

8

S/N [dB]

Spec

tr. E

ff.

Little headroom for improvement Doubled bandwidth – same power


Status Quo Classical DTT and Cellular Video: Overlap in Usage Scenarios






Competition by support of mobile services in classical DTT standards



Competition by support of mobile services in classical DTT standards

(Increasing) competition by support of broadcast services in LTE



Status Quo Data Rates and Bandwidths

Video goes HDTV, 3D and even UHDTV - requiring higher data rates

Spectral efficiency of DTT (e.g. DVB-T2, ATSC 3.0) plus source coding efficiency grows slower than required data rate and is already very close to the Shannon limit

Additional bandwidth for DTT is not available either

Quite the contrary: Mobile Network Operators exert pressure on regulators to reallocate further TV bands for “digital dividends”


Is Cellular Communications killing the classical

Digital Terrestrial TV?

© ShpilbergStudios- Fotolia.de


Status Quo - Excursus Why Does Cellular Communication Dominate over DTT?

Source: BARB and Ofcom

Compare to Youtube in 2013: • 1 billion users • 6 billion hours streaming per month • 12 minutes per user per day

Too little TV usage is not the reason!!!


DTT has alternatives: Satellite, Cable, IPTV

They have much higher capacities (better quality, more channels), and there is a move from DTT towards these

Cellular communications has no such alternatives

Moreover, LTE offers eMBMS as an alternative to classical DTT

Consumer paying for the service, not for the carrier

TV consumption is stagnating – cellular communications still is growing

Other reason: TV infrastructure is much less costly than cellular infrastructure

Cellular network operators need to charge significant subscription fees (>> fee for TV network operation) to re-finance

Status Quo - Excursus Explanation Attempts for Weak DTT Business Model


Is Cellular Communications killing the classical Digital Terrestrial TV?

Maybe – but maybe they can become friends instead…

© ShpilbergStudios- Fotolia.de







© kras99 – Fotolia.com © PHOTOMORPHIC PTE. LTD. - Fotolia.com


Future Scenarios Which Way to Go for Classical DTT?

Scenario 1: Classical DTT CellCom



Running in Parallel Eliminated Integrated

Scenario Fixed TV M/H TV

1A Classical DTT Classical DTT

1B Classical DTT eMBMS

2 Classical DTT 3GPP Broadcast Profile

Classical DTT 3GPP Broadcast Profile

3 None or eMBMS eMBMS

Use case-wise:


Winning scenario in a country depends on

DTT percentage

Dominant receive antenna: rooftop or indoor

Which DTT system is deployed (analog, 1st generation DTT = DVB-T, ATSC 1.0, ISDB-T, or 2nd generation = DVB-T2, ATSC 3.0)

Future Scenarios Which Scenario Will Prevail?

All 3 scenarios at the same time – It depends on the country!

© Victoria - Fotolia.com


The Nürnberg DVB-T site broadcasts ≈ 70 Mbit/s within the ≈ 300 MHz TV spectrum

In the same coverage area (≈ 6000 km2) within a similar bandwidth, the cellular networks transmit > 1300 Mbit/s unicast data on average over 24/7 (much more on peak times)

Unicast needs much higher area spectral efficiency (bit/s/Hz/km2) than broadcast

Can only be achieved by small cells

In 5G, area spectr. eff. shall be increased by factor 1000 (up to 10 Mbit/s/m2)

Ultra-dense networks

Why do broadcast networks use large cells? Cost!

Future Scenarios Why do the Network Topologies Differ So Much?

http://dvb-t.the-media-channel.com


Future Scenarios Difference Between Rooftop and Handheld Reception

SNRHH – SNRRT:

N.Fig. + Impl. Loss +2 dB



SNRHH – SNRRT:


Rx Antenna -16 dB



SNRHH – SNRRT:


Rx Antenna -16 dB

Height Loss -20 dB



SNRHH – SNRRT:


Rx Antenna -16 dB

Height Loss -20 dB

Penetration Loss -11 dB



SNRHH – SNRRT:


Rx Antenna -16 dB

Height Loss -20 dB


Add. Body Shadow -4 dB



Simulcast of a dedicated rooftop signal plus a dedicated handheld signal nearly as spectrally efficient as only one very robust signal

SNRHH – SNRRT:


Rx Antenna -16 dB

Height Loss -20 dB


Add. Body Shadow -4 dB

Total -49 dB


Example:

SNRHH = 0 dB

SNRRT = 49 dB

Simulcast gives moreover the freedom to transmit (a) at higher quality to rooftop antennas and (b) using two different network infrastructures

Status Quo Implications of SNR Difference

Shannon capacity:

1 bit/s/Hz

16.3 bit/s/Hz

One single very robust transmission @ 1 bit/s/Hz

Simulcast of 2x same video quality @ 0.94 bit/s/Hz (total)

0 10 20 30 40 500

5

10

15

S/N [dB]

Spec

tr. E

ff.


Future Scenarios Scenario 1A (Classical DTT for Fixed + M/H)










Future Scenarios eMBMS instead of Classical DTT for Fixed + M/H






Observation: Broadcast exhibits a very non-uniform distribution of receive power over the coverage area

For fixed TV, this can be partially compensated by rooftop antennas with higher or lower gains or even indoor antennas

For handheld devices, no such compensation exists

Cellular topology: much more even distribution of receive power

Moreover, experience from DVB-H etc. shows that integration of classical DTT into cellular devices is unlikely


Scenario 1A is not very likely


For fixed reception, 2nd generation DTT standards (2G DTT) like DVB-T2 + ATSC 3.0 achieve very high spectral efficiencies

Scenario 1B is good for countries that already have this scenario and where a switch-over (to e.g. Scenario 2) would not provide great benefit

Examples: Italy, UK

After 15 years, the situation might be different

Future Scenarios Scenario 1B: Classical DTT for Fixed, eMBMS for M/H

Scenario 1B is very likely over at least 10-15 years in countries which have:

- 2G DTT infrastructure (transmitters and rooftop antennas) already in place, and - high DTT penetration


HPHT networks do have (cost) advantages for fixed reception

Most countries have these in place for sufficient coverage keep them

Scenario 2 is useful for countries that benefit from a better waveform

Classical DTT has gained over many years profound expertise and devised suitable algorithms for HPHT networks

But the unicast features of cellular networks could prove very useful for an „improved DTT“ system

Integrate this into cellular (i.e. 3GPP) standards

Develop a new 3GPP Broadcast Profile

Future Scenarios Scenario 2: 3GPP Broadcast Profile for Fixed (+ M/H)

Scenario 2 has good chances within the next 6-15 years in countries which have:

- not yet switched over to 2G DTT (or are about to), and - a high terrestrial TV penetration


Replaced by satellite, cable and IPTV

In these regions, the DTT spectrum might be refarmed and assigned to cellular networks („world region“-wide)

World Radio Conference 2015 just taking place now – Switzerland is in favour of refarming TV bands 470 – 790 MHz for cellular (see http://www.teltarif.de/paris-terror-rundfunk-abschalten-information/news/61815.html)

In exchange, cellular operators might be forced to distribute some basic (public) TV services by (improved?) eMBMS

However, this process takes some years

Technology (eMBMS) to be accepted by broadcasters

Has to be coupled with frequency license for mobile broadband

Modifications of media regulation

Example: Switzerland, USA?

Future Scenarios Scenario 3: No DTT (or only eMBMS)

Scenario 3 is likely after the next 5-10 years for those countries, where DTT is fading away

http://www.teltarif.de/paris-terror-rundfunk-abschalten-information/news/61815.html
















© everythingpossible- Fotolia.com


HPHT serving higher definition content (rooftop or indoor antennas)

Cellular networks covering mobile and handheld scenarios (in-/outdoor)

Cooperation Concepts Our Focus: Scenario 2 (Mainly for Fixed Reception)


Cooperation Concepts Spectrum of Scenario 2



TV carriers are jointly used by all cellular operators

Avoids duplicating the content



TV carrier does not belong to a single cellular operator

Avoids duplicating the content

Unicast carriers can link to TV carriers (enabling carrier aggregation)


All devices can receive broadcast, but only „smart“ ones unicast

Mobile/handheld devices only receive standard quality

Fixed devices also receive standard quality, when reception of high quality content is too bad

Cooperation Concepts Scenario 2: Overview


Cooperation Concepts From eMBMS to a Stand-Alone Broadcast Profile

Problem: LTE (and eMBMS) chips are quite expensive because of

high algorithmic complexity

high patent license fees

Introduce an LTE (or 5G) Broadcast Profile with reduced functionality (cf. „Cat.0“ devices for IoT)

Sheer broadcast profile has to be stand-alone to allow for cheaper chipsets (Cat. „DumbTV“):

lower complexity and less patent license fees

Cat. DumbTV

For comparison: DVB-T2

Cat. SmartTV

Cat. LTE

Source: http://rlpvlsi.ece.virginia.edu/category/chip-gallery/chip-gallery


The similarity between Broadcast Profile and LTE allows for

lower-cost receiver chipsets

reception of SD content by eMBMS when no rooftop antenna is available

interactive services

secure pay-TV by using the LTE path

Moreover, higher number of chips lowers the price!

Cooperation Concepts Benefits of the Broadcast Profile

©Franz Pfluegl 2006 - Fotolia.de


Exploit benefits of DTT

Cat. DumbTV should be cheap, but need not be cheaper than DVB-T2

In DVB-T2, the two dominant modules on the chip (causing highest chip cost) are

LDPC decoder (codeword up to 64 kbit long)

time de-interleaver (up to 219 IQ samples storage)

Broadcast Profile could contain similar modules

Avoid complexity of CellComm

Cellular communication is optimized for unicast transmission and mobile operation (low latency, lower SNR, high pilot + signalling overhead)

Broadcast Profile should re-use as much from LTE but recurve it to fit the fixed broadcast use case

e.g. relaxed latency requirements, reduced protocol stack

Cooperation Concepts How to Carve the LTE Broadcast Profile?


LTE: 2k FFT – short FFTs increase the sub-carrier separation and reduce chip complexity and cost

DVB-T2: 32k FFT – long FFTs allow longer guard interval

very long channel impulse responses and large SFNs

Cooperation Concepts OFDM – FFT SIZE

Bandwidth W

Time


LTE: currently only max. 64-QAM, in future releases 256-QAM

ATSC 3.0: High-order constellations: 256-QAM, 1k-QAM, up to 4k-QAM

Non-Uniform Constellations (≈1 dB gain for ≥256-QAM)

Cooperation Concepts High-Order Constellations + Non-Uniform Constellations

-1 0 1-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

-1 0 1-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5


LTE: Turbo Code, max. infoword length: 6144 bits

DVB-T2/ATSC 3.0: LDPC Code, max. codeword length: 64800 bits

Broadcast Profile: use a Turbo Code, but with much longer infowords

Cooperation Concepts FEC Code – Longer Codewords

102

103

104

105

106

0

2

4

6

8

10

Codeword length [bits]

Req

. Eb

/N0

[dB

]


Useful, when no frequency diversity is available

LTE: No time interleaving (apart from scheduling and Hybrid ARQ)

DVB-T2: Time-interleaving over several 10 or 100 ms

Cooperation Concepts Longer Time Interleaving

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 90010

-2

10-1

100

101

Ch

ann

el

cap

acit

y

Time [ms]


Time-Frequency-Slicing (i.e. frequency hopping) for (a) combatting frequency-selective fading and (b) interference mitigation when reducing the frequency re-use factor

Cooperation Concepts Time-Freqency-Slicing

S S

S

S

S

S

S

S

Time slot (i.e. sub-frame)

Freq

uen

cy

ban

d


Cooperation Concepts Signal Constellation Diversity

© kras99 – Fotolia.com

No feedback channel employ Signal Constellation Diversity (Rotated Constellations) to increase signal robustness

Mostly useful in On-Off-Channels, e.g. in Time-Frequency-Slicing

Breiling, Zöllner, Robert: "When do rotated constellations provide gains?“, IEEE BMSB, 2014

I Q I Q

I Q I Q

I Q i q I q

i Q i q I Q


Idea by Yiyan Wu, Canadian CRC, Ottawa!

Rate splitting approach for multiple access

Layer Division Multiplexing (LDM – Cloud Transmission) for multiple robustness layers similar to hierarchical modulation

Principle can also be used to allow adjacent Tx interference when reducing the frequency re-use factor

Cooperation Concepts Rate Splitting – LDM/Cloud Transmission

Highly robust

Lowly robust

Noise

Tx 1 Tx 2


Fixed reception lower pilot overhead suffices

No (dynamic) bi-directional communication lower signalling overhead

Cooperation Concepts Some More Ingredients for the Broadcast Profile

Source: www.netmanias.com


Idea of Prof. Reimers, IfN, TU Braunschweig/Germany

The LTE-A+ signals are embedded in Future Extension Frames provided by DVB-T2 (and by ATSC 3.0)

Cooperation Concepts Scenario Migration: Tower-Overlay-over-LTE-A+ (TOoL+)

Source: IfN, TU Braunschweig


In 2015: Paris, Aosta Valley in Italy and in Braunschweig/Germany

Two independent DVB-T2 and LTE-A+ network components, sharing a broadcast frequency

WiFi

Tablet

VoD…

TV

Transmitter

LTE-A+ receiver

Lin

ear/

no

n l

inear

con

ten

t

LTE-A+ modulator

DVB-T2 HDTV

DVB-T2 modulator

Source: Pierre Bretillon, TDF

Cooperation Concepts TOoL+ field trials


Developed by TU Braunschweig and Sony – now investigated within DVB

Idea: When a DTT receiver fails because of

time-variant fading

too low SNR in certain locations or at edge of coverage,

the received signal is not 100% useless. Instead, it carries some information that just not suffices for decoding success.

RoD receivers exploit cellular networks‘ unicast to request just the bit of required extra information (i.e. code bits)

Cooperation Concepts Rendundancy on Demand (RoD)

Decoding threshold

Mutual information

Decoding success Decoding failure


Cooperation Concepts Overview of the RoD System

RoD is backwards compatible (to DVB-T2, ATSC 3.0 …)

Some buffering is required in the RoD receiver in order to compensate for the request cycle (for typically 200 ms)

Only redundancy for the currently consumed service needs to be requested

Off the shelf TV receiver

RoD TV receiver


Cooperation Concepts Results of a (Vehicular) RoD Field Trial in Berlin



Observation: Consumption of DTT services is very non-uniform over 24h

But bandwidth is occupied 24/7

Exploit this non-uniformity: use spectrum for DTT during peak time but for other unicast for off-peak time

Off-peak time content: (unicast) TV services, prefetch cacheable content, …

Cooperation Concepts Dynamic Broadcast (Once Again From TU Braunschweig)

Time in one day (hour)

3 24 21 18 15 12 6

TV channel

1

2

4

3

5

6

7

8

Viewer number

9

Broadcast Mux No. 2

Broadcast Mux No. 1



Cooperation Concepts Overview of the Dynamic Broadcast System

Important: The viewers will not notice any difference in comparison to traditional TV broadcast

TU Braunschweig demonstrated the system live at IFA Berlin 2012


Cooperation Concepts Distribution of TV Content

Scenario 2: Mobile/handheld are covered by (LTE) base stations

But content is the same as for fixed TVs covered by HPHT

Re-use these signals for the base stations and re-encode

Terrestrial


Especially for rural areas

TV content very suitable for satellite backhauling

Huge coverage area

Format: suitable for also for satellite TV, or dedicated format for eMBMS?

Cooperation Concepts Satellite Distribution of TV Content


Cooperation Concepts Cooperation Attempts in the Past

Examples of cooperation efforts between mobile and broadcast worlds:

The Next Generation Handheld (NGH) ad-hoc group of DVB approached 3GPP (LTE) in 2011 to ask for a cooperation 3GPP showed little interest

Qualcomm and Ericsson proposed the use of LTE-eMBMS for the ATSC 3.0 standard ATSC showed little interest

© PHOTOMORPHIC PTE. LTD. - Fotolia.com


Recent activities

Ericsson and Qualcomm have initiated a Study Item within LTE standardization for an improved eMBMS in Rel. 14

extension of the guard interval

MIMO transmission

100% resources instead of existing 60% limitation

anonymous TV reception

5G standardization is starting now and broadcast is one of the identified use cases, so we will potentially have an efficient broadcast mode within 5G

Cooperation Concepts Cooperation Attempts in the Present and Future

© PHOTOMORPHIC PTE. LTD. - Fotolia.com


Cooperation Concepts Expected Winners and Losers in the DTT Business


Cooperation Concepts Fraunhofer LTE-A Testbed in Erlangen

Distance between towers: 5.3 km (larger than 16.7µs cyclic prefix)

A Kind of “HPHT“: Two base stations on High Towers

Tower 1 height: 135 m

Tower 2 height: 50 m


Cooperation Concepts Fraunhofer LTE-A Testbed in Erlangen

Using LTE bands 17 (700 MHz) and 2600 MHz

Maybe extend to an HPHT site in Nürnberg later on (at approx. 15 km)

Fraunhofer IIS is using this for trialling (conventional) eMBMS over HPHT network


Cooperation Concepts Projects at Fraunhofer IIS in Erlangen

DVB-NGH and ATSC 3.0 standardization

IMB5: Trialling the Suitability of existing eMBMS for HPHT networks

Software Def. Radio implementation of LTE+eMBMS (OpenAirInterface)

Cosat, Satinet: Sat backhauling for LTE (incl. eMBMS) + media distribution

5G broadcast: all of this talk and more

© pixeltrap - Fotolia.com


Terrestrial BC vs. eMBMS: Competition and Cooperation Conclusions

Cellular communications raise data rates further

Pressure for further digital dividends persists

Cooperation between classical digital terrestrial TV and cellular communications is inevitable on the long term

Digital terrestrial TV has assets that it should bring into the marriage

concepts (like scalability from Low Power-Low-Tower to High-Power High-Tower networks)

technologies (like time interleaving)

Intense cooperation can generate a win-win-situation

© Raman Khilchyshyn – Fotolia.com


Terrestrial BC vs. eMBMS: Competition and Cooperation Outlook

Fraunhofer IIS intends to initiate a 5G Broadcast project within the EU Research Framework Programme Horizon2020

Possibly we will submit a broadcast proposal within 5G standardization

© James Thew - Fotolia.com


Marco Breiling Chief Scientist Broadband & Broadcast Department Tel.: +49 9131 776-6325 E-Mail: [email protected] Internet: www.iis.fraunhofer.de/en/profil/abteilungen/bb.html

© Anton Balazh 2012 - Fotolia.com ©Fraunhofer IIS/Kurt Fuchs

Terrestrial BC vs. eMBMS: Competition and Cooperation Contact

http://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/en/profil/abteilungen/bb.html

http://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/en/profil/abteilungen/bb.html

TERRESTRIAL BROADCAST VS. LTE- EMBMS: COMPETITION AND COOPERATIONmontreal.ieee.ca/files/2015/12/eMBMS_Cooperation... · 2015-12-29 · • The BTS is a trans-national Society with

Documents